The added value of FM: How can FM create value to organisations

(1)

Delft University of Technology

A critical review of papers from EuroFM Research Symposia 2013-2015 papers Jensen, PA; van der Voordt, Theo

DOI

10.13140/RG.2.1.2361.8089 Publication date

2015

Document Version Final published version

Citation (APA)

Jensen, PA., & van der Voordt, DJM. (2015). The added value of FM: How can FM create value to organisations: A critical review of papers from EuroFM Research Symposia 2013-2015 papers. Baarn: EuroFM. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2361.8089

Important note

To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable). Please check the document version above.

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons. Takedown policy

Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights. We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology.

(2)

The added value of FM

HOW CAN FM CREATE VALUE TO

ORGANISATIONS?

A critical review of papers from

EuroFM Research Symposia 2013-2015

Per Anker Jensen and Theo van der Voordt

Research Report

A EuroFM Publication

April 2015

(3)

HOW CAN FM CREATE VALUE TO ORGANISATIONS?

A critical review of papers from EuroFM Research Symposia 2013-2015

Authors: Per Anker Jensen and Theo van der Voordt

Published by the European Facilities Management Network (EuroFM) ISBN: 9789490694081

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2361.8089

Electronic version available at www.eurofm.org

EuroFM Publications Gooimeer 4 1411 DC Naarden The Netherlands Telephone: +31 35 694 27 85 Email: eurofm@eurofm.org www.eurofm.org

All reasonable care and attention has been taken in compiling this publication. The author and the publishers regret that they cannot assume responsibility for any error or omission contained herein. All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced, re-used, re-purposed, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers.

(4)

The added value of FM

HOW CAN FM CREATE VALUE TO

ORGANISATIONS?

A critical review of papers from

EuroFM Research Symposia 2013-2015

Per Anker Jensen and Theo van der Voordt

Research Report

A EuroFM Publication

(5)

CONTENT Page

Preface 1

Foreword 2

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. ADDED VALUE OF FM – A CRITICAL REVIEW 6

2.1 Corporate Facilities 8

2.2 Learning Facilities 13

2.3 Healthcare Facilities 19

2.4 Temporary Housing Facilities 23

2.5 In-house FM on National Level 25

2.6 Performance Measurement 29

2.7 General Papers 35

2.8 General evaluation of all papers 37

3. VALUE ADDING MANAGEMENT 43

3.1 The Concept of VAM 43

3.2 The LEGO Case 45

3.3 The practice of VAM in Denmark and the Netherlands 48

3.4 Other aspect related to VAM 50

4. LEARNING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 51

5. CONCLUSION 53

6. FURTHER READING 54

(6)

PREFACE

EuroFM’s mission is the advancement of knowledge in Facility Management (FM) in Europe and its application in Practice, Education and Research. An understanding of how FM can add value to the organisations is crucial for the professional development. The topic has for some years obtained increasing attention in research. With this review of recent research in this field EuroFM provides an improved basis for such an understanding.

The former chairman of EuroFM’s Research Network Group, professor Per Anker Jensen, Technical University of Denmark, proposed the formation of a research group on “The Added Value in FM”. He has chaired the group from its establishment in 2009. The group has organised a number of workshops and has been an active part of the annual European FM Conferences (EFMC) with many dedicated sessions, papers and presentations as part of the research symposia as well as workshops and panel debates with practitioners and researchers.

One of the major results of the group until now was the publication of the book “The Added Value of Facilities Management – Concepts, Findings and Perspectives”, which was launched at EFMC 2012 in Copenhagen at a plenary session with a presentation, reviews and discussion. The editors of the book were Per Anker Jensen, Theo van der Voordt, Delft University of Technology and Christian Coenen, ZHAW - Zürich University of Applied Science. It included contributions by 18 authors. All participants in the conference were offered a free copy of the book.

Since 2013 the group has been chaired evenly by Per Anker Jensen and Theo van der Voordt. A new result of their work is presented in this research report. The core of the report is a review of selected research papers from recent EuroFM Research Symposia: EFMC 2013 in Prague, EFMC 2014 in Berlin, and EFMC 2015 in Glasgow. In addition some papers have been reviewed that were presented at the international CIB FM Conference 2014 in Copenhagen, which focused on Using facilities in an Open World – Creating Value for all Stakeholders. The reviews provide overview and critical reflections on this new research and evaluate it in relation to knowledge building, management practice and professional development.

The review was originally written as a section for a planned book on “Evidence-Based FM” with a broader presentation of the research activities in EuroFM. However, as the plans for this book did not develop as intended, it was decided to publish the review as a separate research report dedicated to “The Added Value of FM”.

EuroFM is pleased to publish this research report and we hope that it will be an important element in the advancement of knowledge in FM and be of inspiration for practitioners, students and other researchers for the activities in their organisations and a basis for further collaborative work in EuroFM. We would like to thank the authors for their contributions.

Ron van der Weerd Keith Alexander Susanne Balslev Nielsen Chairman of EuroFM Chairman of RNG 2013-2014 Current chairman of RNG

(7)

FOREWORD

When we presented our book on “The Added Value of FM” at EFMC 2012 in Copenhagen the reviewers from practice as well as academia were very positive. However, they also told us, that the book should not be seen as the end, but more like the beginning of investigating this important topic. We agreed with that and it gave us a strong incentive to continue our collaborative research across European borders. We continued by arranging paper sessions and workshops at the following EFMC’s and we were pleased to see that the interest in the topic both among researchers and practitioners continued to increase.

One of the learnings from our book from 2012 was that developing conceptual frameworks for mapping, analysing and visualising added value was useful but also had its limitations by being rather static and not very action oriented. Therefore, we put more focus on investigating how to manage and measure added value in practice and developing a practical management tool which we call Value Adding Management. We for instance investigated how practitioners in FM and Corporate Real Estate Management (CREM) deal with value adding by interviewing professionals from companies in Denmark and the Netherlands.

The main purpose of this report is to provide a state of the art of research and practice in relation to the Added Value of FM. This is done by making a critical review of research papers from FM conferences (chapter 2) and by presenting the concept of Value Adding Management (chapter 3) with results from our own research, including the investigation of management practice in Denmark and the Netherlands. This is supplemented by implications for learning and professional development in chapter 4, conclusion in chapter 5 and recommendations for further reading in chapter 6.

The report is for us a step on the way in creating an overview of the current development of knowledge concerning the Added Value of FM. One of our main concerns has been to evaluate, whether there is a cumulative knowledge building in this field. We must conclude that this is only to a limited degree the case. Therefore, there still is a strong need to develop more knowledge on the topic and in particular to develop a simple standardised model as well as methods and tools to measure and manage the added value of FM that can more easily be applied in practice.

In our aim to achieve this we are working on producing a second book with a more practical aim. We have invited a number of authors to contribute to this new book and organised an authors’ workshop in connection to the EuroFM meeting in The Hague, February 2015. We will soon start editing the contributions. The working title is “Facilities Management and Corporate Real Estate Management as Value Drivers – How to manage and measure added value? We expect this new book to be published in 2016.

Per Anker Jensen Theo van der Voordt

Technical University of Denmark Delft University of Technology

(8)

1. INTRODUCTION

The research group on “The Added Value of FM” was established in 2009 on the initiative of Per Anker Jensen, Technical University of Denmark, who was chairman of EuroFM’s Research Network Group in 2007-2008. He also became chairman of the new group, which included researchers from Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, Switzerland and UK. The general background for establishing this collaborative research group was that the perception and application of FM during the last decades gradually has shifted from primarily steering on cost reduction towards managing facilities as a strategic resource to add value to the organisation and its stakeholders and to contribute to its overall performance.

More specifically, the background also was ongoing work in a NordicFM work group on the topic “Highlight the Added Values for Core Business Provided by FM”. The work group consisted of practitioners from Denmark, Norway and Sweden and was chaired by Ole Emil Malmstrøm, who was board member of EuroFM and former chairman of the Danish Facilities Management Association and the NordicFM network. Per Anker Jensen participated as the only researcher in the group and worked alongside on a research project called “Facilities Management Best Practice in the Nordic Countries”. Based on the combination of these two activities he developed the conceptual framework FM Value Map (Jensen et al. 2008 and Jensen, 2010), which was a basis for the new EuroFM research group. Ole Emil Malmstrøm participated as a practitioner in the research group, and the close interaction between research and practice has been an essential aspect of the development of knowledge on the added value of FM.

The research group started with a workshop in Copenhagen May 2009 and it has over the years met in a number of other workshops in different European countries. The first joint work in the group was to conduct a literature review on the added value of FM and related issues. This was done by combining research from three disciplines: FM, Corporate Real Estate Management (CREM) and Business to Business (B2B) Marketing. This resulted in the conference paper: “The Added Value of FM: Different Research Perspectives” (Jensen et al., 2010) for EFMC 2010, where the group presented the work at a plenary session followed by a panel debate with practitioners. The literature review was later developed into the journal paper: “In Search for the Added Value of FM: What we know and what we need to learn” (Jensen et al., 2012a) published in Facilities, where it achieved a Highly Commended Paper Award.

Joint book

At a workshop with 18 participants during EFMC 2010 in Madrid the research group decided to write a book together. This was accomplished within two years, and the book: “The Added Value of Facilities Management – Concepts, Findings and Perspectives” (Jensen et al., 2012b) was launched at EFMC 2012 in Copenhagen. The editors were Per Anker Jensen, Theo van der Voordt, Delft University of Technology and Christian Coenen, ZHAW - Zürich University of Applied Science. The book includes contributions by 18 authors and is divided in four parts. The first part is introduction, including presentation of the three disciplines, FM, CREM and B2B marketing, as well as the making of the FM Value Map. The second part concerns theory and methodology. The third part includes empirical studies and the fourth part concludes with learning and perspectives. At EFMC 2012 the book was presented by the authors at a plenary session and reviewed by a panel of two practitioners and a researcher. All participants in the conference were offered a free copy of the book.

(9)

The research group also established a sub-group in 2010 chaired by Christian Coenen, ZHAW with a particular focus on the value chain in FM. They created a framework called FM Value Network focusing on stakeholder management and relationship value in FM. The framework was developed into a case study protocol, which was used in a study of the Learning Café in the Library at the University of Glasgow (Alexander, 2011). The sub-group wrote a joint chapter in the added value book called “FM as a Value Network: Exploring Relationships amongst Key FM Stakeholders” (Coenen et al., 2012) and later on the journal article “Facility Management Value Dimensions from a Demand Perspective” (Coenen et al., 2013), published in Journal of Facilities Management.

Contributions to EFMC 2013-2015

During EFMC 2013 in Prague there were both a paper session at the research symposium and a workshop on the added value of FM. Besides, a number of other papers had relation to this topic and will also be reviewed in chapter 2. The topic of the workshop was: “How to manage and measure different value dimensions?” It was chaired by the three editors of the book from 2012 and the participants were asked at the beginning of the workshop to fill in a short questionnaire about their perception of the concept of “Added Value of FM”. The results confirmed that the concept of Added Value is interpreted in many ways and linked to a huge variety of different topics. Prioritization of different types of added value showed to be highly subjective and depends on the participant’s position, experience and personal beliefs. Most prioritized values included the contribution of FM and CREM to the quality of life, the productivity of the core business, user satisfaction and sustainability. The participants found it difficult to mention concrete measures how to add value, partly due to different interpretations of the term “measures” as “interventions” and “ways to measure”. The answers ranged from concrete measures such as evaluate happiness, satisfaction and work support, create energy savings in building retrofitting, and take care of shuttle busses and parking facilities for bikes, to abstract measures such as steering on economics, efficiency and effectiveness, or ‘good price & value for the client’.

This inspired us to investigate the perception and application of the added value of FM among practitioners further. Therefore, we conducted a survey with 10 interviews of experienced practitioners - 5 from Denmark and 5 from the Netherlands - based on a common interview guide. The results were included in a conference paper for EFMC 2014 in Berlin (Van der Voordt and Jensen, 2014). This paper was presented during a paper session on the added value of FM at the research symposium. Like at EFMC 2013 there were a number of other papers with relation to this topic, which will be reviewed in chapter 2. Some of the results from our conference paper will be presented in chapter 3 on Value Adding Management. In the beginning of 2014 we decided to work towards publishing a second book on the added value of FM with a more practical focus than the first book mentioned above. The plans for this new publication were presented at the session during EFMC 2014 and a meeting with interested conference participants and potential contributors were arranged after the session. At the time of writing this report, the work on the new publication is in progress.

At EFMC 2015 the concept of the added value of FM came to the fore as well. In a pre-conference meeting we organized a second authors’ workshop to discuss the progress of our second book, as a follow-up of a first authors’ workshop at the bi-annual EuroFM meeting in the Hague, February 2015. In a paper session on Creating Value in Organisations three papers have been presented about the added value of facilities, one on educational facilities, another one focusing on multiplier effects through FM services, and the third one on performance measurement of public facilities.

(10)

Added value at CIB 2014

With Per Anker Jensen being the chair of the organising and scientific committee of the CIB Facilities Management Conference in Copenhagen, May 2014, it is not surprising that the added value topic was included here as well. In line with the conference theme “Using Facilities in an Open World: Creating Value for all Stakeholders”, various papers were devoted to the added value of FM and related topics. We selected three papers to reflect on it, one paper about value adding space management and two papers about performance measurement.

Outline of this EuroFM report

Chapter 2 of this report provides a state of the art of research and knowledge on the added value of FM based mainly on 21 selected research papers from EFMC 2013-2015 and CIB 2014, listed in Table 1. All EFMC papers have been published in Alexander (2013), Alexander (2014), and Alexander and Price (2015). The CIB 2014 papers have been published in Jensen (2014). Chapter 3 focuses on the process of Value Adding Management. This chapter is based on a chapter about this topic in our first book and a EFMC 2014 paper by ourselves about management practice in Denmark and the Netherlands. Chapter 4 discusses implications for learning and professional development, whereas in chapter 5 overall conclusions of this report will be presented. This report ends with suggestions for further reading and a list of references. References used in the reviewed papers are only mentioned, if they are not commonly used in research on the added value of FM and seen as being of special interest for the development of this research area.

(11)

2. ADDED VALUE OF FM – A CRITICAL REVIEW

The selected papers for this review have been divided in the following seven themes, supplemented with and a general evaluation:

1. Corporate Facilities (paper 1, 2 and 3) 2. Learning Facilities (paper 4, 5, 6 and 7) 3. Healthcare Facilities (paper 8, 9 and 10)

4. Temporary Housing Facilities (paper 11 and 12) 5. In-house FM on national level (paper 13, 14 and 15) 6. Performance Measurement (paper 16, 17, 18 19) 7. General papers (paper 20 and 21)

The selection and the critical reviews were made in a sequential process starting with a screening of papers that seemed related to the topic of added value of FM based on title, abstract and keywords of all papers in the symposium publications from EFMC 2013-2015 and CIB 2014. Both papers that explicitly referred to “Added value” and papers which in other ways seemed relevant to the topic were selected. We then made a critical review of each paper by reading the full paper and evaluating it according to a common list of criteria resulting in a written review of 1-2 pages per paper. The evaluation criteria were theoretical foundation, methodology, empirical evidence, practical relevance and contribution to knowledge development. We were particularly interested in identifying to which degree there is a cumulative knowledge building, so that new research builds on earlier results and contributes with new knowledge of theoretical and practical relevance.

The detailed evaluations were divided between us. One of us reviewed all selected papers from 2013 and the other all selected papers from 2014. The 3 EFMC 2015 and 3 CIB 2014 papers were equally divided between us. We exchanged and commented on each other’s reviews and during this process a few papers were left out and a few others added. All these activities resulted in a list of 21 papers, which are reviewed in this chapter. We sorted them into themes, wrote the thematic reviews and commented on each other’s reviews in several rounds. Based on the thematic reviews we made the general evaluation. Table 1 shows an overview of the 21 papers that were selected for our review.

Table 1: Selected papers for being reviewed

No Authors Title Country Focus Sector

1 De Been and Beijer (2013)

Effects of interventions in an innovative office on satisfaction, perceived productivity and health complaints

Netherlands User satisfaction and perceived productivity Offices 2 Appel-Meulenbroek, De Vries and Weggeman (2014)

Layout mechanisms that

stimulate behaviour of employees

Netherlands Innovation by Knowledge Sharing Offices 3 Gerritse, Bergsma and Groen (2014)

Exploration of added value concepts in FM practice: learning from financial institutes

Netherlands Conceptual framework

Banks

(12)

4 Beckers and Van der Voordt (2013)

Facilitating new ways of learning in Dutch Higher Education

Netherlands New Ways of Working and Learning

Learning facilities

5 Kok, Mobach and Omta (2013)

Can FM contribute to study success?

Netherlands Study success Learning facilities 6 Tinsfeldt and Jensen

(2014)

Value adding space management in higher education. Denmark Space management Learning facilities 7 Matzdorf and Greenwood (2015)

Student choice, league tables and university facilities

UK Student choice Learning facilities 8 Daatselaar, Schaap

and Mobach (2013)

Added value of FM in Institutes for intellectually disabled residents Netherlands Disorderly behaviour Health care facilities 9 Groen (2014) Contribution of FM to hospital(ity) issues Netherlands Experience of hospitality Health care facilities 10 Van Sprang, Pijls

and Tonnaer (2014)

Capturing meal experiences in nursing homes: an exploratory study

Netherlands Meal experience Health care facilities 11 Kuijlenburg and

Mobach (2013)

The influence of FM on detainees Netherlands User satisfaction Prisons

12 Waroonkun and Prugsignant (2014)

Post Occupancy Evaluation for improving of main dormitories

Thailand User satisfaction Dormitories

13 Redlein and Zobl (2013)

Facilities Management in Austria 2012 – Value Add? Austria Economic effective implementation of FM In-House FM

14 Redlein and Zobl (2014)

Facility Management in West- and Eastern Europe

Austria and Romania

Cost savings In-House FM

15 Von Felten, Bohm and Coenen (2015)

Multiplier effects through FM services

Switzerland Productivity Not specified

16 Meerman, Lellek and Serbin (2014)

The path to excellence:

integrating customer satisfaction in productivity measurement in FM. Germany Connection between productivity and satisfaction Not specified

17 Lavy, Garcia and Dixit (2014)

A framework for Key Performance Indicators for a holistic facility performance assessment

USA Performance measurement

Not specified

18 Riratanaphong and Van der Voordt (2014)

Measuring the added value of workplace change: comparison between theory and practice

Thailand Workplace change

Offices

19 Riratanaphong and Van der Voordt (2015)

Performance measurement of public facilities in Thailand: A case study

Thailand Performance measurement

Offices

20 Ashworth (2013) Added value of FM Know-how in the Building Whole Life Process Switzerland + other countries FM value creation Not specified 21 Katchamart and Then (2014) Strategic FM-procurement: an issue of aligning services to business needs Denmark, Hong Kong, Thailand, Netherlands FM alignment to business Not specified 7

(13)

2.1 Corporate Facilities

There are three papers that deal with corporate facilities – all from the Netherlands.

Paper 1: The effects of interventions in an innovative office on satisfaction, perceived productivity and health complaints

The paper by De Been and Beijer (2013, pp. 129-141) investigates staff satisfaction and perceived productivity in an almost new office building with desk sharing before and after a number of interventions to improve the office environment. The case organisation is an Environmental Protection Agency in the Netherlands.

Theoretical foundation

The paper does not include a separate section on theory and it is based on a limited number of references to literature on offices and new ways of working from FM, environmental psychology and ergonomics. There are no references to research on the added value of FM.

Methodology and evidence

The study applies Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) methodology based on two rounds of questionnaire survey. The first survey was conducted nine month after occupation and the second exactly 2 years later. The number of responses was around 380 in both surveys with a very high response rate - around 74%. The interventions were made based on the results of the first survey and included changes in relation to indoor climate, acoustics and IT.

The results showed improved performance in most satisfaction scores as well as in perceived productivity. However, the satisfaction with indoor climate was lower in the second survey. Comparison with benchmark data from other Dutch office building shows that the satisfaction with the case building was quite high even based on the first survey and based on the second survey the office environment performs very well.

Practical relevance

The study is relevant for facilities managers in office based organisations and designers of office buildings. The results contribute with new evidence on innovative office with desk sharing in general. The investigation of the effects of interventions is particularly relevant and interesting.

Conclusion

The paper provides an interesting empirical study, which contributes to evidence based on POE methodology. It is a rare study with POE conducted both before and after interventions. The paper does not contribute to theory on added value, but is provides empirical evidence in relation to benefits in terms of satisfaction and productivity. It does not deal with sacrifices. The results are of interest also in other countries.

Paper 2: Layout mechanisms that stimulate behaviour of employees

The paper by Appel-Meulenbroek et al. (2014, pp. 5-17) concerns a research and development (R&D) office environment in an industrial company (Océ Technologies). The paper explores how FM can contribute to stimulate innovative behaviour like knowledge sharing (KS) as a means to improve the effectiveness of a R&D organisation. To be able to show the added value of the work environment, quantitative metrics have been used to discover the underlying mechanisms for evaluating office design.

(14)

The paper include some references to research on the added value of FM and CREM, but the theoretical foundation is mostly literature on KS and layout mechanisms, which are common sources in FM-related research on workplace and space management. The general used distinction in knowledge management between tacit and explicit knowledge is applied and layout mechanisms such as accessibility, centrality and exposure are presented. Former layout studies point out that people are more inclined to cooperate when they see each other, for a long(er) time or when passing by. A distinction is being made between co-presence (number of people visible), and movement (number of people moving along a path). It was expected that 1) working in visually open layouts enhances face-to-face interaction through seeing and overhearing; 2) spaces that are centrally located and have connections to many other places enhance unplanned interactions; and 3) because of exposure, employees sitting close to the flows of movement interact more.

Paper 2 applies a research design based on Realistic Evaluation theory (Pawson and Tilley, 1997), which tries to identify mechanisms behind the working of programs. To do this the study identifies quantitative metrics of CRE to investigate correlation with organizational outcome metrics. The conceptual model shown in Figure 1 is developed and applied. The CRE metrics are related to office layout and collected by computer based analyses of floor plans by so-called isovist and visibility graph analyses, using Space Syntax software. The study is based on statistical analysis of correlations between eight quantitative layout metrics that were linked to co-presence/accessibility, exposure and centrality (see Figure 1), and several knowledge sharing behaviour metrics, obtained from office staff with logbooks over one week, to record who meets who, where, how often, and in what kind of interaction. The logbook survey had a response of N = 138 (response rate 51%), resulting in 1907 KS meetings. These are categorised in five KS activities: Descriptions, questions, actions, proposals and evaluations.

Figure 1: Conceptual model for layout metrics and KS meetings

(15)

The findings show that from the three mechanisms identified from literature only accessibility and centrality had a significant association with the amount of KS meetings. Visibility of colleagues appeared to have a positive correlation of .355, whereas the average walking distance to roommates lowered the amount of KS meetings (correlation .181). The centrality metric showed a decrease in KS meetings with an increase in walking distance to other places (correlation .183) and a decrease in density (.181). Participants in denser environment used meeting areas more often, possibly not to disturb others. Apparently, the exposure mechanism was not really triggered in this case.

The paper shows that FM can support and improve the primary process of their clients significantly. The case company could identify with the findings and they felt that the layout metrics represented their building correctly. It also helped FM to discuss the plans for a renovation program with the general management. It will be necessary to have a relevant list of (layout) metrics for each different added value to prove how FM/CREM interventions trigger the desired mechanisms. Realistic Evaluation emphasizes the influence of the context on outcomes. FM departments have to look within their own “black box” and see how layout mechanisms are best implemented to support the specific goals of their client or customers.

Conclusion

Paper 2 concludes that a focus on unit costs and building condition rather than overall costs and effectiveness will keep FM from capturing full strategic attention. The findings proved that different layout mechanisms exist and that Realistic Evaluation and the quantitative layout metrics that were used are a valid way to study the influence of the work environment on knowledge sharing. However, the study also showed that the influence of the work environment remains hard to be proven empirically. The strong influence of the context on the working of the mechanisms makes it also hard to generalize the results to other organisations.

Paper 3: Exploration of added value concepts in FM practice: learning from financial institutes

The paper by Gerritse et al. (2014, pp. 52-63) concerns overall FM performance in 6 Dutch financial companies with an in-depth case study on office buildings belonging to one bank (ING Netherlands). The paper aims to show the practicality of added value concepts for FM in financial institutes. It tries to respond to the call for further development of FM performance beyond costs to capture and to manage the total value of FM for core business and corporate performance.

This paper has a particular strong foundation on earlier added value research. The study builds directly on the FM Value Map, but on a number of other references from recent literature on added value as well. The paper also refers to a more general study on business innovation by Low (2000) resulting in nine non-financial value drivers and a value creation index, and showing that innovation, management quality and employee relations have the greatest impact on market value for the involved top 500 companies. The empirical study in the paper applies a list of ten added values derived from earlier FM/CREM research.

Paper 2 includes a literature review to explore added value in business practice. The field research included an exploratory multiple case study at 6 financial institutes and one in-depth case study. Core topics were explored in a focus group with five experts. The interviews with facility managers

(16)

and estate managers were based on methods used in earlier FM/CREM research and focussed on definitions of added value(s) and priorities. The in-depth case study included a survey with the end users (N= 2163; response rate 33%).

According to the respondents the added value of FM can be defined as “the provision of an effective, inspiring and comfortable working environment in a cost efficient manner in which quality levels and costs are balanced, and the facilities optimally support the core business and contribute to the image of the organisation”. Beside cost control FM can contribute to support of productivity, risk control, increase satisfaction, support image, and increase sustainability. There is clear preference and need for cost reductions and cost control by FM. Increasing productivity and customer satisfaction are highly prioritised as well. Pursuing cost reductions is going to have a negative effect in other areas if not in balance with effectiveness and may result in decreased productivity, decreased customer satisfaction and reputational damage. The results also show the influence of time: all respondents indicated the influence of the current financial crisis on their current FM policy.

Successful interventions to reduce costs are reduction of m2, smart contract management, improvement of the workplace ratio, and economies of scale. Interventions to improve productivity were flexibility of workplace and workplace layout, activity based working, inspiring environment (ambiance and appearance), and accessibility and availability of workplaces. For the image value, interviewees identified appearance of the built environment, maintenance, interior design, sustainable design, hostmanship (hospitality), and risk management as FM success factors.

All critical success factors have been mapped in a conceptual model for the management of added value, see Figure 2.

The in-depth case study illustrates how management of added value can be integrated in FM-operations. It also showed that the end users of FM products and services ranked risk control as highest important value, followed by support of productivity and satisfaction, and support culture as lowest important.

Paper 3 confirms the growing awareness of the added value of FM and CREM and the relevance of the distinction between effectiveness and efficiency and between use value and exchange value. It clearly links possible input factors i.e. interventions in the accommodation, facilities, services and FM process to possible outcomes i.e. better performance of the organisation. The findings on prioritised values and the visualisation of relationships between inputs and outcomes can be used to support decision-making. By using the same language of adding value strategies in an operational tool like a customer satisfaction survey, organisations can combine end-user information with strategic management information.

Conclusion

This paper is an important contribution to the conceptualisation and visualisation of the added value of FM. However, the evidence for cause-effect relationships between input-throughput-output variables is mainly based on a literature review. The interviews show opinions and practical experiences but no hard evidence based on measuring the outcomes. Further research is needed to clarify how different FM customers (clients, customers, end users) consider the importance of different FM added values, and to explore sector specific and generic performance indicators that correlate between corporate performance and FM performance.

(17)

Figure 2: Conceptual model for demonstrating added (exchange and use) value

(18)

Evaluation of paper 1, 2 and 3 on corporate facilities

Theoretical foundation: Paper 1 does not include a separate section on theory and is based on a

limited number of references with none to research on the added value of FM. Paper 2 and 3 both have a foundation in earlier research on the added value of FM and CREM and both papers refer to the general distinction between use value and exchange value.

Methodology and evidence: All three papers present very comprehensive studies and in-depth

empirical studies. Paper 1 is based on two quantitative POE surveys in the same organisation and office building before and after interventions. Paper 2 combines different types of quantitative research methods, and paper 3 combines various qualitative methods with a quantitative questionnaire survey.

Practical relevance: All three studies have been conducted in collaboration with FM-organisations

in the case companies and all have clear practical relevance.

Conclusion: The three papers provide strong and important contributions with new knowledge of

practical relevance. Paper 2 and 3 build strongly on earlier FM research and provide interesting new insights. The evidence bases are quite good in all three papers in terms of amount of data from the case companies, but it is uncertain to which degree the empirical results can be generalized to other companies. The theoretical and methodological insights are of general interests.

2.2 Learning Facilities

There are four papers about learning facilities, two from the Netherlands, one from the UK and one from Denmark.

Paper 4: Facilitating new ways of learning in Dutch Higher Education

The paper by Beckers and Van der Voordt (2013, pp. 25-35) investigates how facility managers in higher education institutions can align the learning facilities to the changing demand of modern education. The starting point is an analogy between new ways of working in relation to office environments and new ways of learning. Based on a framework from new ways of working a comparison is made between basic drivers and assumptions of new ways of working and new ways of learning, which shows many similarities. The framework consisting of four focus areas - Organisation, Individual, Physical and Virtual – is adapted to new ways of learning, see Figure 3.

The paper has a foundation partly in theory on new ways of working and partly in theory about recent developments in learning and educational facilities. New ways of working has been one of the most important areas from the early days of FM research with seminal work by for instance Franklin Becker and Francis Duffy, which the paper refer to together with more recent research on knowledge work. The paper does not build directly on research on the added value of FM, but it is concluded, that conceptual frameworks regarding adding value by facilities can be helpful to balance different needs and objectives from a core business point of view and requirements from other stakeholders such as the end users and technical managers.

(19)

Figure 3: Four focus areas of new ways of learning

The study applies a qualitative research methodology based on multiple data collection with interviews with 14 facility managers at Dutch Higher Education Institutes, document analyses of organisational strategies and housing plans, and walk-throughs. The study involved 14 of the largest Dutch Higher Education Institutes representing a total market share of 84% of all students in such institutes. In that respect the evidence base is very broad. The study is limited to the perception of the supply side, but the authors mention that the results show a remarkable similarity with another recent Dutch study concerning the perception of new ways of learning among educational professionals.

The paper is concluded with a list of 10 points of attention to cope with new ways of learning. This is supplemented with recommendations for how to incorporate these 10 attention points in space management and to take care of an integral approach of new ways of learning. The recommendations are formulated in 4 matching criteria:

• Try to develop a common language between education people and people that are responsible for real estate and other facilities;

• Organize user contact at all levels;

• Deal with differences between planning horizons of education and accommodation; • Consider the effects of fixed scheduling of lessons in classrooms.

The research has been carried out with comprehensive inputs from practice via interviews. The research topic also has a clear relevance for many FM practitioners responsible for learning environments. The framework and the list of 10 points of attention to cope with new ways of learning provides a good reference for practitioners and the 4 mentioned criteria provides concrete management advice on how to incorporate the 10 point into practice.

physical or gan isat io n virtual Matching in div id ua l NEW LEARNING SPACE DIGITISATION OF LEARNING AND TEACHING NEW WAYS OF EDUCATION THE NEW STUDENT 14

(20)

Conclusion

The paper provides an original contribution to research on how to manage modern learning facilities in higher education by incorporating theory from the comprehensive research on new ways of working to the developing practice and research field of new ways of learning. The 4 mentioned criteria is a good example of value adding management in a specific context. The evidence base is quite comprehensive on a national level, even though the study is limited to the perception on the supply side. The trend towards new ways of learning is international and the results of the paper are also relevant for learning environments in other countries.

Paper 5: Can FM contribute to study success?

This paper by Kok et al. (2013, pp. 36-43) investigates the relationship between FM provision and the learning outcome of Dutch Universities of Applied Science. The learning outcome was measured as the percentage of students who successfully leave the university within five years after attending. The FM provisions were based on a preliminary analysis of a national online questionnaire survey among lecturers. It included 40 items of FM provisions that were evaluated by the respondents.

The paper only includes limited theoretical explanation but refers to an extensive literature review presented earlier in a journal paper by the same authors (Kok et al., 2011). The journal paper includes a comprehensive review of FM literature, literature on the added value of FM, and some references to educational research. The understanding of value perception is based on marketing literature. The conference paper presents a conceptual model of added value of FM in the educational environment that is based on the common triple of input – throughput – output, see Figure 4.

Figure 4: Conceptualisation of the added value of facility services in educational environments

The study applies a quantitative research methodology based on a national online questionnaire survey supplemented with additional data gathered by desk research. The sample included 1,752 responses from 18 Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS). The questionnaire was developed from the extensive literature review presented in the earlier journal paper. The data were analysed statistically based on a regression model to measure the effect of size, religious identity (Christian/non-Christian) and perceived quality of facility services on study success. With data from 18 out of 39 Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences the evidence base is quite comprehensive in a national context. The main limitation is that the study is based on responses from teachers only and not from students, which the authors also recognise.

(21)

The results show that the size of universities measured by number of students strongly negatively relates to study success. After controlling for size, universities with a Christian identity showed significantly better educational achievements than institutions without a religious identity. Only seven of the facility components showed a statistically significant relationship with study success. Items with regards to classrooms, classroom conditions, ICT facilities, cleanliness, front office and local printing were positively related to study success, while traditional workplaces showed a negative relation with study success. Items like layout, fitting out, and general facility services did not show a statistically significant relationship with study success. The authors conclude that these findings document that facility services can assist the quality of higher education and that a prime consideration in learning space design is the facilitation of social interaction.

The research has been carried out with comprehensive responses from teachers. The results are probably mostly of practical interest for university managers, designers and facility managers. The study provides statistical evidence for the added value of FM in to learning environments and impact on study success and shows which facility components are of particular importance. However, it will require more detailed studies to identify which qualitative aspects make a difference for each of these components. In the present form the results are difficult to apply in practice. The other findings in relation to size of institutions and impact of some facility components on study success are of interest for other countries, although it is unlikely that they can be directly generalised.

Conclusion

The paper provides important empirical evidence of the added value of FM in relation to study success in higher education. It provides novel statistical documentation showing that some facility components have significant impact on learning outcome. The evidence base is quite comprehensive on a national level, but it is an important limitation that only the views of teachers and not of students are included. Most of the results are of interest for learning environments in other countries.

Paper 6: Value adding space management in higher education

The paper by Tinsfeldt and Jensen (2014, pp. 369-380) presents a methodology for space optimisation in educational facilities, that can add value to organisations. Its focus is on gymnasiums in Denmark. All Danish gymnasiums changed from being state-owned to being self-governing and function nowadays to a high degree as independent companies. New governmental regulations regarding the maximum number of students in each class, reduction of public payment, and modern teaching methods challenge real estate and facility managers to rethinking the accommodation strategy to optimally fit both with the organisational objectives and the organisational culture, new teaching methods, and new financial and political conditions.

Based on a review of literature on space management, the index for space utilisation developed by Che Ani et al. (2012), and a distinction between effective and efficient use of space and perceived versus actual space utilisation, a number of space optimisation initiatives have been identified that could lead to improvement in space utilisation as well as in learning environments. The empirical findings are used as input for a critical assessment of the theory and methods of Post-Occupancy Evaluations (POE) – with a focus on the version published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Blyth et al., 2006) and a new data-collection tool, the USEtool.

(22)

The research is based on two case studies of two Danish gymnasiums using methods from Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) - document analysis, interviews with the heads of the schools, the facility managers, seven teachers and the chairman of the student council, walk-throughs, observations and questionnaire surveys - and the USEtool. The USEtool has been developed in Norway (Hansen et al., 2011). It focuses on the usability of the building. An essential part of the USEtool is a facilitated walk-through in the building followed by a workshop together with users. The paper mentions a response rate of 100% to the questionnaire survey with students representing three classes at three different levels at each gymnasium. However, no numbers of respondents are included.

The paper provides examples of how value adding space optimisation processes can be undertaken with extensive user involvement and recommends a new space optimisation procedure including 11 proposals for space optimisation for case 1 and 7 proposals for case 2. However, the research is only based on two case studies in Denmark, which limits the possibility to generalise. The new recommended procedure has not been empirically tested in new cases. Financial costs and benefits are not included at all. Remarkably, none of the two gymnasiums have managed to integrate their use of space with their overall strategic goals such as creating spaces that better can support the teaching, motivate students and teachers, attract more students, and increase the utilisation of existing space to accommodate an increasing number of students.

Conclusion

Paper 6 shows promising ways to optimise space utilisation using POE and the USEtool. It sheds light on which aspects should be included in POE, with as most important aspects Strategic Value, Aesthetics and Image, Space, and Comfort. Additional case studies are needed to test the proposed procedure, both in educational environments and other sectors.

Paper 7: Student choice, league tables and university facilities

The paper by Matzdorf and Greenwood (2015) discusses the impact of a universities ranking and expectations about high quality facilities on student’s choice where to study. As a form of benchmarking customer satisfaction, quality, levels of service provision, or popularity, league tables have become a widely applied feature to indicate the performance of comparable organisations in the UK. The current study relates university rankings to (perceived) quality of facilities.

The paper compares the findings of various studies into influencing factors on student choice where to study. It discusses variables such as the reputation and status of the university, type of university, its ranking, location, price, quality of campus, recreational facilities and learning resources, but it does not include a clear theory or a conceptual framework of input-through-output factors.

The study aims to establish whether the facilities provided at the University of York had any influence on either the league tables or on students’ choice of university. The paper builds on a literature review of former studies into influencing factors on students’ choices where to study (for instance Price et al., 2003, who surveyed 8,742 students across 9 English universities). The empirical data are derived from the annual York University Student Union survey with 2,382

(23)

responses and 3,500 focus group comments, a survey carried out by one of the authors with 331 responses and 144 comments from focus groups, and results from the Unite Student Experience Report 2012 based on 1,236 responses. The numbers of respondents are quite huge. However, the study is limited to one university and it was not possible to randomise or select samples.

Whereas former studies showed an unclear picture, the current paper confirmed a strong influence of league tables on students’ choice, see Figure 5. Top league universities tend to be selected with a focus on reputation, although there are also students that avoid a top university because they think not to be suitable for the top 5. Personal preferences regarding the location and the cost play an important role as well. Whilst university facilities do not feature high on students’ selection criteria, there are expectations that high ranked institutions come with top class facilities. If not, facilities may act as a dis-satisfier. Students, whose expectations of their institution’s facilities are not met, may vent their disappointment via national satisfaction surveys.

My choice was strongly influenced by: 4. League tables

Definitely agree 139 42%

Mostly agree 135 41%

Neither agree nor disagree 41 12%

Mostly disagree 7 2%

Definitely disagree 9 3%

Figure 5: Influence of league tables on students’ choice of university

Conclusion

The data clearly show the impact of league tables on student choice where to study. Although the impact of high quality facilities seems to be limited, a lack of quality may result in dissatisfaction once the university is selected as a study place. Due to the limitation to one case, the findings cannot be generalised yet. According to the researchers the questionnaire needs redesigning for wider applicability.

Evaluation of paper 4, 5, 6 and 7 on learning facilities

Theoretical foundation: Paper 4 is not really connected to theoretical issues of the added value of

FM but it clearly shows that educational performance depends on an appropriate match between new ways of learning, new learning spaces, digitalisation of learning and teaching and coping with the needs and interests of (new) students. Paper 5 focusses on relationships between inputs i.e. facility services and outcomes i.e. study success. Paper 6 builds on a review of literature on space management and a critical assessment of the theory and methods of Post-Occupancy Evaluations (POE) and a new data-collection tool, the USEtool, whereas paper 7 builds on former findings on the impact of facilities on student’s choice where to study.

(24)

Methodology and evidence: Paper 4 is partly conceptual based on literature review, but it also

includes an empirical study with a mix of qualitative methods, whereas paper 5 is based on an extensive questionnaire that was filled out by 1,752 teachers from 18 out of 39 Universities of Applied Sciences. By use of regression analysis the latter study provided empirical evidence for significant correlations between the perceived qualities of facility services and study success. A limitation of this study is that no students were involved and no objective KPIs of input parameters have been applied. Paper 6 is based on 2 case studies using mixed methods, and paper 7 is based on 3,950 user responses and over 3,600 focus group comments,

Practical relevance: Paper 4 showed clear similarities between new ways of working and new ways

of learning and contributes to a better understanding of both fields. Paper 5 used respondents that teach in practice and shows more light on their perceived qualities of facility services in connection to study success. A next step could be to be more precise about actual qualities and further exploration of why particular services have a positive impact and others have no or a negative impact.

Paper 6 included interviews with practitioners, whereas paper 7 was initiated by decision makers due to a drop in the ranking of the involved university.

Conclusion: The four papers confirm the relevance of facilities and services in higher education in

order to cope with new ways of learning, to contribute to study success, and to be attractive to students searching for a place to study. All four papers build on conceptual analyses of input and output parameters. The mechanisms for how spaces, facilities and services add value to higher education institutes need further exploration.

2.3 Healthcare Facilities

There are three papers about healthcare facilities, also all from the Netherlands.

Paper 8: Added value of FM in Institutes for intellectually disabled residents

The paper by Daatselaar et al. (2013, pp. 190-198) investigates to what extent changes in organisation and space can contribute to the quality of life of intellectually disabled residents with a severe behavioural disorder. The paper was presented at a workshop as research in progress.

The paper is mostly based on literature on environmental psychology and evidence based design of healing environments. Besides, there are some references to the general literature on FM including research on the added value of FM.

The study applies a qualitative research methodology with multiple methods including 10 interviews, document analysis and observations. Reported incidents of disorderly behaviour for two residents in one institution are measured and compared in 4 periods with differences in organisational and spatial conditions. The evidence base is quite limited. However, the study is explorative and longitudinal, and it concerns a type of facility that it rarely studied from a FM perspective.

(25)

The study shows that a reduction in stimuli can improve the quality of life of residents. Stimuli can occur both in organisation and in space. In periods where there were an individual and stable team, a standardised approach and individual accommodations less incidents were reported than in periods with a group team, team changes, no standardised approach and accommodation of residents in group accommodations.

The research has been carried out with involvement of practitioners. The research was approved by the Medical Ethics Review board and was conducted with permission from the parents of the residents and the management of the institutions. The results are of practical interest for designers, facility managers, general managers and designers of institutions for intellectual disabled residents.

Conclusion

The paper provides novel and interesting insights concerning the influence of FM on behaviour in an unusual type of facility. The evidence base is limited but the paper creates a basis for further research in this specific context and contributes to the general understanding of the added value of FM.

Paper 9: Contribution of FM to hospital(ity) issues

This paper by Groen (2014, pp. 129-138) explores what aspects of a hospital stay are related most to hospitality according to patients. It is based on a study involving patients at three hospitals in the Netherlands.

The study adopts a definition of hospitality that refers to a host that provides security, psychological and physical comfort for a guest who is away from home, the coming together of a provider and receiver, and a blend of tangible and intangible factors. Hospitality serves as a means for the host and the guest to protect both from hostility. The study secondly builds on a definition of hospitality as a contemporaneous human exchange, which is voluntarily entered into, and designed to enhance the mutual wellbeing of the parties concerned through the provision of accommodation and food or drink. And third, it adopts the four dimensions of hospitality: spatial, temporal, behavioural, and physical. Many of the tangible factors (accommodation, food and drink, cleanliness) are taken care of by FM, whereas the dimensions attitude and behaviour refer to both FM and medical staff. The paper includes references to research on the added value of FM.

In addition to a review of literature three surveys were conducted in which hospital patients were asked: 1. To rate hospital staff on behavioural aspects regarding hospitality; 2. To select characteristic aspects of hospitality; and 3. Which aspects patients value most. The surveys were disseminated in 5 departments of three different hospitals, with a total N = 960 and response rates ranging from 30% to 76%. The survey method was developed based on the Experience Indicator from Sentea Multisensory Concepting and a pilot in a regional hospital. Questions could be answered on 5 or 7 point Likert scales. At one of the hospitals the quantitative survey was supplemented with a qualitative survey including 8 in-depth interviews with patients from one department.

Taking adequate time, listening, involvement and quality of care were associated most frequently with hospitality. The sample showed significant differences between four generations and between

(26)

outpatients and clinical patients. Within the behavioural dimension patients valued ‘being taken care of’ highest. They want to be set at rest, reassured, and set at ease. Other often mentioned aspects were friendliness, reception, respect, adequate information, and empathy. Aspects of space and facilities were also mentioned, but less often, mainly referring to the availability of coffee in waiting areas, and adequate spaces, also for people in wheelchairs or walkers. The results show some particularity of hospitality in a hospital environment compared with similar research from hospitality industry (hotels etc.). Hospital patients belong to a special type of guest called ‘those in need’.

The results are mostly of interest for facilities managers and general managers in hospitals and FM providers of services related to hospitality. The different aspects that patients associate most with hospitality and its connection to the four dimensions of hospitality can be used to develop or test a hospitality strategy and to define priorities in FM processes, facilities and services. Although the behavioural dimension was mentioned most often, the physical dimension showed to be an essential element for the perception of hospitality as well.

Conclusion

This paper provides an important contribution to a topic, which has had little attention earlier in FM research. It contributes to a better understanding of one value parameter: hospitality experience, from the perspective of hospital patients. It is less clear which interventions will contribute to which particular aspects of hospitality.

Paper 10: Capturing meal experiences in nursing homes: an exploratory study

The paper by Van Sprang et al. (2014, pp. 107-116) explores the experience construct and shows data from measuring the meal experiences of elderly clients living in nursing homes. The study involves residents in 8 different institutions in the Netherlands.

The study is based on the definition that experience is the interaction between the individual and his or her environment, containing functional, mechanical and humane clues, and the inner responses to this interaction. It builds on a holistic conceptual model of the experience construct. It also builds on former studies showing that external triggers in the social and physical environment can partly compensate for a reduction in the elderly’s perceptiveness, and that a multi-sensory experience activates the physical processes of people, triggers a person’s memory and stimulates eating.

The study combines qualitative and quantitative research in an innovative way by using a specially developed measurement box based on research on service clues. By including gaming elements residents were triggered to express their thought and feelings with meal experience. The measurement box provided quantitative data that were analysed statistically. This was supplemented by qualitative data based on open questions to the same respondents. The survey was conducted in the post experience phase (after the meals were finished). It was completed by N = 217 elderly people with a mean age of 84.5 years.

Statistical analysis of the responses confirmed that three types of clues can be distinguished as separate factors in meal experience: functional clues (e.g. menu choice, time of having dinner, temperature of the food, presentation on the plate), mechanical clues (sensory perception of the

(27)

physical environment e.g. the ambiance of the restaurant) and humane service clues (behaviour and appearance of service providers i.e. general staff and staff of the restaurant). Based on satisfaction scores a number of items for improvement of all service clues came to the fore. The study did not succeed in differentiating between cognitive and affective responses to meal experience.

The results are of particular interest for facilities managers and general managers in institutions for elderly people and providers of catering. The questionnaire and measurement box showed to be practically applicable and result in clear responses from the elderly. Probably the same method can be used in other settings as well. The qualitative data can be used as input for improvements.

Conclusion

This paper – like paper 9 - provides an important contribution to a topic, which has had little attention earlier in FM research. The study shows the importance of being clear about the different aspects of a complex construct such as experience. It also shows the value of a mixed methods approach and building on existing and validated measurement tools.

The use of smileys to measure satisfaction and weather symbols to measure a respondent’s affective assessment seems promising but has to be tested on its validity.

Evaluation of paper 8, 9 and 10 on healthcare facilities

Theoretical foundation: Paper 8 is mostly based on literature on environmental psychology and

evidence based design of healing environments. Papers 9 and 10 have some references to earlier research on the added value of FM. The paper both mostly build on theory on hospitality experiences, but there is surprisingly little commonality in the literature they refer to and the theories they present.

Methodology and evidence: Paper 8 is a fairly limited explorative study based on a mix of

qualitative methods. Paper 9 and 10 are quite comprehensive studies applying a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods and covering several institutions. Both show the strength of such an approach.

Practical relevance:

All three studies have been conducted in collaboration with FM-organisations in the case institutions and all have clear practical relevance.

Conclusion: The three papers together show the importance of the specific context even within one

sector like healthcare. Paper 8 concerns intellectual disabled residents, paper 9 concerns hospital patients and paper 10 concerns elderly people in nursing homes. These differences in contexts give different methodological challenges and different results. In paper 8 data had to be collected from staff and incident reports, while paper 9 and 10 are based on data from the end users. Research among elderly people in paper 10 also gives special challenges for data collection. The three papers provide important contributions both in relation to research methodology and new theoretical and practical knowledge on the added value of FM in healthcare facilities.

(28)

2.4 Temporary Housing Facilities

There are two papers on temporary housing facilities, one from the Netherlands and one from Thailand.

Paper 11: The influence of FM on detainees

The paper by Kuijlenburg and Mobach (2013, pp. 98-107) investigates the influence of FM on the behaviour of detainees in prison facilities. The paper is based on the assumption that FM can contribute to re-socialization by actively using facility design and detainee activities to positively influence their social behaviour.

The paper is mostly based on literature on environmental psychology and evidence based design of healing environments. Besides, there are a number of references related to the specific topics of natural views and cooking. There are hardly any references to the more general literature on FM.

The study applies a qualitative research methodology based on literature review, desk research, walk-through and four interviews with prison managers and facility staff in two Dutch prisons – one placed in the countryside and one placed in an urban environment. The literature review mostly focuses on two aspects of FM – natural views and cooking (self-cooking or not). With only 4 interviews in 2 institutions the evidence base is quite limited However, the study is explorative and concerns a type of facility that it rarely studied from a FM perspective.

The paper concludes in general that FM influences the behaviour of people. Concerning both natural views and cooking the interviews indicated positive effects but also a risk of more kitchen incidents. These conclusions are considered as indecisive and need further research.

The research has been carried out with involvement of practitioners. The results are of practical interest for designers, prison managers and facility managers even though the specific conclusions are indecisive. The results could be of interest in other countries.

Conclusion

The paper provides novel and interesting insights concerning the influence of FM on behaviour in an unusual type of facility. The evidence base is limited but the paper creates a basis for further research in this specific context and contributes to the general understanding of the added value of FM.

Paper 12: Post Occupancy Evaluation for improving of main dormitories

The paper by Waroonkun and Prugsignant (2014, pp. 329-338) presents the findings of a Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) of the Choeng Doi dormitories of the Chanmai University in Thailand. These dormitories were built in 1965 and consist of 3 to 4 storey buildings, comprising 6 males dormitories and 9 female dormitories. After over 40 years the dormitories required renovation and modernization. The university wanted the dormitories to be not only a regular accommodation but also an environment for education and the development of social skills. In 2007 the existing buildings were upgraded by integrating the social welfare and student halls to create a Living and Learning Center. The paper aims to evaluate the success of its refurbishment and the viability of POE theory in producing building guidelines that result in a better living and learning environment.